Wednesday, July 30, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 57 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

NRA: Public wants armed guards in every school

By Kevin Freking

Associated Press

LAST UPDATED: 12:03 p.m. HST, Dec 23, 2012

WASHINGTON » The National Rifle Association forcefully stuck to its call for placing armed police officers and security guards in every school as the best way to avoid shootings such as the recent massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the nation's largest gun rights lobbying organization, said today the NRA would push Congress to put a police officer in every school and would coordinate a national effort to put former military and police offers in schools as volunteer guards.

The NRA's response to the Newtown shooting has been panned on several fronts since the group broke its weeklong silence on Friday about the rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Rep. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., called it "the most revolting, tone deaf statement I've ever seen." A headline from the New York Post summarized LaPierre's initial presentation before reporters in Washington with the headline: "Gun Nut! NRA loon in bizarre rant over Newtown."

"If it's crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy," LaPierre told NBC's "Meet the Press."  "I think the American people think it's crazy not to do it. It's the one thing that would keep people safe."

LaPierre also contended that any new efforts by Congress to regulate guns or ammunition would not prevent mass shootings. His fresh comments reinforced the position that the NRA took on Friday.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said LaPierre appears to blame everything but guns for a series of mass shootings in recent years.

"Trying to prevent shootings in schools without talking about guns is like trying to prevent lung cancer without talking about cigarettes," Schumer said.

The NRA plans to develop an emergency response program that would include using volunteers from the group's 4.3 million members to help guard children, and has named former Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., as national director of the school program.

Hutchinson said the NRA's position was a "very reasonable approach" that he compared to the federal air marshal program that places armed guards on flights.

"Are our children less important to protect than our air transportation? I don't think so," said Hutchinson, who served as an undersecretary at the Department of Homeland Security when it was formed.

Hutchinson said schools should not be required to use armed security. LaPierre also argued that local law enforcement should have final say on how the security is put into place, such as where officers would be stationed.

"I've made it clear that it should not be a mandatory law, that every school has this. There should be local choice, but absolutely, I believe that protecting our children with an armed guard who is trained is an important part of the equation," Hutchinson told ABC's "This Week."

LaPierre cited Israel as a model for the type of school security system the NRA envisions.

""Israel had a whole lot of school shootings until they did one thing: They said 'we're going to stop it,' and they put armed security in every school and they have not had a problem since then," he said.

Democratic lawmakers in Congress have become more adamant about the need for stricter gun laws since the shooting. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California is promising to push for a renewal of legislation that banned certain weapons and limited the number of bullets a gun magazine could hold to 10. NRA officials made clear the legislation is a non-starter for them.

"It hasn't worked," LaPierre said. "Dianne Feinstein had her ban and Columbine occurred."

There also has been little indication from Republican leaders that they'll go along with any efforts to curb what kind of guns can be purchased or how much ammunition gun magazines can hold. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., noted that he had an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle in his home. He said America would not be made safer by preventing him from buying another one. As to gun magazine limits, he said he can quickly reload by putting in a new magazine.

"The best way to interrupt a shooter is to keep them out of the school, and if they get into the school, have somebody who can interrupt them through armed force," Graham said.

Schumer said that he believes gun owners have even been taken aback by LaPierre's refusal to include additional gun regulation as part of an overall response to the Newtown massacre.

"He's turning people off. That's not where America is at and he's actually helping us," Schumer said on NBC, where he appeared with Graham.

LaPierre also addressed other factors that he said contribute to gun violence in America, but he would not concede that the types of weapons being used are part of the problem.

He was particularly critical of states, which he said are not placing the names of people into a national database designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. He said some states are not entering names into the system and 23 others are only putting in a small number of records.

"So when they go through the national instant-check system, and they go to try to screen out one of those lunatics, the records are not even in the system," LaPierre said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said he found the NRA's statements in recent days disheartening because they deal with every possible cause of gun violence, except guns. He said the NRA's position means that any new regulations that the administration wants to put into place early next year "is not going to happen easily."

"It's going to be a battle, but the president, I think, and vice president, are really ready to lead the fight," Lieberman said on CNN's "State of the Union."

Associated Press writer Adam Goldman contributed to this report.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 57 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
Charliegrunt wrote:
Who's going to pay for it? The taxpayers? Aren't we deep enough in debt? Well trained armed security personnel do not come cheap.
on December 23,2012 | 06:28AM
serious wrote:
He mentioned volunteers in the article. Might be okay in a right to work state, but not here---got to be Union.
on December 23,2012 | 07:12AM
kainalu wrote:
The gun manufacturer, the gun retailer, and the gun owners - along with the NRA should pay for it. The 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee "cheap" firearms.
on December 23,2012 | 07:48AM
daniwitz13 wrote:
My suggestion is for every school to have a designated staff member to be a designated shooter or gun handler. His Identity to be secret, only known by few. It is essential that it be a RIFLE, a hand gun would be useless. It would be his call to duty for dire situations only.(not to preclude a partner) They would be responsible for its safe keeping. The cost of a good rifle vrs. a paid guard for years is a no brainer. A known guard would have a bull's eye on his back and killed first, then others. A designated shooter would have the advantage of knowing where the killer is and the killer not knowing that he is targeted. One good shot should do it. Similar to Air Marshals that are unknown, to act only when they need to. Least amount of cost, less intrusive and less amount of guns in Children's midst. Rifle might NEVER be used at all. That's the good part. Pity.
on December 23,2012 | 10:48AM
stingray65 wrote:
Yes, of course Taxpayers will take of it!! United States of America sent Hundreds of Millions of Dollars to other country, for what? What do we get from Israel and among others? Now this is the safety of school children. Who cares how much does it cost?
on December 23,2012 | 03:22PM
Changalang wrote:
Maybe the parents of the slaughtered children wish their school had an armed official to save the children. The Principal rushed the gunman with nothing in her hands, and was cut down. Parents should never have to bury their children. Perhaps if the Principal was range ready certified as a revolver master, more kids would've lived in CT. The Principal is always there in every school. Perhaps it is time to modify the job description so they can actually be able to protect the children under their care. Armed guards equal more cost and the wrong message. Pistol packing Principals offer the correct amount of deterrence to the whack job cowards who want to live the substitute thrill of "Call Of Duty" before they off themselves in their final game. No politics; just solutions to keep the kids safe. School staff can do more than call 911 to report shots fired and pray a maniac with a stolen gun runs out of ammo before it is their turn. All the shooter did was play Call of Duty 6-7 hours a day. Class action lawsuit surviving parents? Kind of sounds like the tobacco scam. product providers know what is harmful, but sell it anyway. Was the CT shooter a crazed killer before he started playing Call Of Duty? If so, who did he kill before that.
on December 23,2012 | 06:35AM
onevoice82 wrote:
I agree, and teachers who are willing and able should carry too!
on December 23,2012 | 07:33AM
RingRing wrote:
Principals are not in school all the time and when they are, they are sitting in their office doing paperwork. Also, picture the typical school here in Hawaii with huge, open perimeters. The would-be shooters have options to get in to every school that would be sometimes miles away from a gun-toting principal. Seriously, really stupid idea for Hawaii schools with such open boarders. . .
on December 23,2012 | 08:26AM
Changalang wrote:
Again, my suggestions are for the National discussion. State by state must make their own determinations per needs identified by the outcomes identified by the President's blue ribbon panel. What Hawaii does is working to prevent mass murder in schools. However, the blue ribbon panel suggestions may help our own D.O.E. focus on other problems that need to be identified and addressed within our own education system, in my humble opinion.
on December 23,2012 | 09:04AM
false wrote:
Well, let's see.... If our educators (read teacher, administration, custodian) chose to take the required 40 hours classroom training, pass the background checks, pass the practical skills requirement that police officers are required to take... and then bought their own firearm and ammunition... Oh my goodness, it wouldn't cost the tax payers anything now, would it?
on December 23,2012 | 06:37AM
Changalang wrote:
D.O.E. makes the position of Principal job requirements with modified requirements. Those who don't want to do the job anymore, need not apply. The CT massacre proved that THAT Principal gave all she got to try and protect her kids, but she didn't have equal force or firearms training; did she? The budget could provide for training, weapons, and lock boxes in every school. The Chief of Police even has the authority to grant conceal/carry to certain individuals deemed fit. I am not even a gun guy. Haven't needed to qualify/engage since prior military service; but there is nothing that should stand in the way of protecting the innocent keiki. I could not even watch the media footage of the parents of slain children anymore. Never again. The threat must be neutralized with equal force contingencies that make schools a harder target for homicidal cowards when they are selecting their stage for their grand finale of carnage.
on December 23,2012 | 07:02AM
kaupena wrote:
on December 23,2012 | 07:07AM
serious wrote:
I wonder if the students would be easier to handle when they see the principal packing heat???
on December 23,2012 | 07:13AM
Anonymous wrote:
You obviously don't hand out with educators much. Sure, there may be some principals who would carry but if you made it a requirement there wouldn't be enough principals to fill half of the schools. Its hard enough to get people to take the job already. Just because the CT principal rushed the gunman doesn't mean that she would be willing or able to use a firearm to kill someone, as a required duty. I'm fine with a police officer on campus if we can find a way to pay for it. I'm a gun owner. I like to shoot and I'm responsible. It is a little tedious to get a gun in Hawaii, but I don't think its thorough enough. Passing a safety education class should be required for the purchase of any handgun or rifle (along with the existing background check, etc.). This should be a national law. I've met good meaning people who are armed to the teeth who I wouldn't want anywhere near an emergency at a school full of kids. They aren't trained in any of the situations they think they can take care of. Leave it to the professionals.
on December 23,2012 | 07:23AM
Changalang wrote:
I am closer to many public school teachers than you assume. In general, they are a lot like myself. Don't need a gun and don't want a gun. My personal opinion is that Hawaii does not need the provisions I suggested because we have a particularly tight society that has proven to produce different types of cretins. The gun toting mass killer usually hits the news in Hawaii because of domestic violence incidences. Hawaii has very low gun crime because on an island people watch and know each other at a higher level of intensity. I know the teachers I know do care about and want to protect their students as much as they don't like guns. My suggestion was more for the States that have the demographics to support intervention. Yes, these crimes could happen anywhere, but where they happen is what needs to be examined. New policies of student protection must be implemented where risk assessment protocols identify the need. In those areas in the past, leaving it to the professionals means that shots were fired and people were already dead. In Newtown the killer shot himself after his mass murder spree when hearing the sirens of the professionals coming with over a hundred extra rounds to spare. Perhaps that killer/coward would've picked a softer target if the weasel knew the Principal was armed and trained. HPD has done an excellent job in keeping Hawaii's children safe and community resources keep them very informed of who to watch for while undercover CID monitors situations silently. What we got, works for us.
on December 23,2012 | 07:52AM
Anonymous wrote:
I agree with you on many points and apologize for making assumptions about you. Really, the emphasis needs to be on threat assessment and mental health. A number of our schools in Hawaii already have police officers stationed on site. I'd like to see more of this for safety as well as education purposes. I've worked in the DOE for 10 years and I've work closely with teachers and principals. Most of them consider the students, "their kids" and would instinctively protect them against a threat. I've worked with 7 principals and can think of only one who could do more good than harm with a firearm. Having a law enforcement officer on campus could be a deterrent to most threats. School and Mall shootings most often happen in middle class areas where people feel safe and their kids have good schools. I don't believe there is any way to make sure this never happens again. A perpetrator will use whatever weapon they have available and will find a way of making their plan work. What we need to do is work to minimize the threat by maintaining caring and supportive school cultures and identifying and treating individuals who may pose a risk to themselves or others. Like you said, the fact that people are interconnected in Hawaii helps in this regard. However, there are students in every school who feel alienated and have faulty thinking on how to resolve their problems. There are systems of support in place to help these students. Some of these students will work things out and be healthy citizens, others might live with anti-social behaviors, and a tiny fraction of them will act out against others. How well we address this will determine how safe our children and community are.
on December 23,2012 | 08:50AM
Changalang wrote:
No apologies necessary as assumptions are part of the communication process. I am glad you are suggesting getting to the root of the problem. Our mental health identification methods for students at risk are sorely lacking, but had Columbine done what I assume you are suggesting, perhaps more lives would be saved. President Obama's approach is a good one. The panel needs to look at everything; mental health screening/profiling, gun laws, violent video game influence on violent behavior, and equal force protection strategies.
on December 23,2012 | 09:00AM
Pocho wrote:
The City of Chicago and Detriot probably been asking for more cops on the streets. Guess them poor ones got no love getting the xtras.
on December 23,2012 | 07:42AM
808comp wrote:
They shouldn't be talking only about schools,cause it could happen anywhere's at any time.
on December 23,2012 | 08:10AM
nitpikker wrote:
the nra should be made to pay for their ludicrous suggestion!! what a bunch of crackpots!!
on December 23,2012 | 08:14AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Kinda like the first crackpot to come up with this idea? Your hero Bill Clinton. Look it up. It's virtually the same program the NRA is recommending. And Bill started this during a time in which the assault ban was still in effect. If back then we'd have acknowledged our problem and supported Clinton's program, these kids might still be alive.
on December 23,2012 | 08:44AM
entrkn wrote:
4.3 million nra members trying to dictate to 300 million citizens?... sometimes it seems that the tail wags the dog but in this case it is that part between the dog and his tail that is trying to do all the wagging.
on December 23,2012 | 08:21AM
ChaelSonnen wrote:
I think back to all my elderly teachers in Elementary School and can say no, I don't think we'd be safer if they had guns. In fact, I think we'd be more at risk. Having volunteers at every school, every day......is that realistic?
on December 23,2012 | 08:31AM
coldtoo wrote:
makes sense but no volunteers, they are also nuts. put a 10 grand tax on guns to pay for guards.
on December 23,2012 | 08:52AM
Anonymous wrote:
Questions for Mr. Lapoop- How do you know a guard will not snap himself? Perfect opportunity for sexual predators to apply as legitimate guards so who protects the children then? What if the guard is on one side of the campus and the shooter comes in from the other side of the campus? What if the shooter kills the guard first? What happens when the guard takes his lunch break? What if there is one guard and multiple assailants? How come banks have armed guards and they still get robbed? What are you smoking?
on December 23,2012 | 08:56AM
hawaiikone wrote:
An abundance of what if's. Easy to generate. Here's 2 more. First, what if we do ban "assault" rifles? The ban was in effect when Columbine happened. Two, what if we do nothing? We'll see another tragedy. I love your last one about the bank guard. There's a difference between a life and some money.
on December 23,2012 | 09:14AM
Bothrops wrote:
"There's a difference between a life and some money." Really? if so we would have done something about our roads and drivers.
on December 23,2012 | 12:36PM
hawaiikone wrote:
you'd think...
on December 23,2012 | 04:57PM
environmental_lady wrote:
So you and the NRA claim that Columbine happened even though the assault rifle ban was in place. First of all, it wasn't a blanket ban. Anyone who owned assault rifles before the ban could still keep them. Only if it had been a retroactive ban, then you could make a point.
on December 23,2012 | 03:01PM
hawaiikone wrote:
your name says it all.
on December 23,2012 | 04:58PM
ghstar wrote:
I seriously doubt the "public" wants armed guards in our schools. If you like TSA at the airport, I guess you'd like guards in the schools. But consider the cost. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars a year for TSA guards and several hundred airports. There are tens of thousands of schools, most with many entrances and exits. There are no where near enough properly trained people to handle the job and the cost to train and pay that many guards would bankrupt the states and cities.
on December 23,2012 | 09:03AM
Kaluu wrote:
Public wants better care for severely mentally ill. Yes, the public needs to pay for it. Worthier expenditure than lots of boondoggles, e.g., obscene farm subsidies. I agree: Forget armed guard nonsense.
on December 23,2012 | 09:05AM
Changalang wrote:
The ACLU may end up being a greater hindrance to real solutions than the NRA. Realistically, Constitutional gun rights have been defined and fortified by U.S> Supreme Court clarification of doctrine impervious to any Congressional and Executive over-reach. Just read the case law. Try and keep up socio-pathic killer "institutionalized" for life, and it is case by case. Doesn't the guy who shot President Reagan get weekend furloughs from the "institution" ?
on December 23,2012 | 10:06AM
control wrote:
Kind of tough to promote better care when the medical experts can't even agree on mental illness. Nearly all doctors have no training on the subject and are not qualified to treat it. Mental illness can happen at any time during your life under periods of stress or duress. You could be a healthy, legal gun owner now, and a basket case next year. Those who suffer and their families may not even be aware that there is a problem.
on December 23,2012 | 11:23AM
Bdpapa wrote:
Is this guy for real? I've lived here all my life and know maybe 10 gun owners, mostly hunters, some target shooters. But none with assault rifles. Thank goodness, we live a much more sheltered life.
on December 23,2012 | 11:11AM
UHFAN1984 wrote:
Really thats odd because I own an M15 A2 rifle that I use to enter service rifle matches in EIC and CMP compititions. I'm supprised your friends haven't corrected you that there is no such thing as an assult rifle it's an semi automatic rifle just lik a semi automatic pistol the AR stands for Armalite the company that first developed the rifle.
on December 23,2012 | 05:10PM
Bdpapa wrote:
All I know about guns is what I read. Since 1969 , I have never even held a gun! Don't need it!
on December 23,2012 | 07:35PM
control wrote:
If you want a safer America, then put school teachers in every gun shop and every gun show. Dispell the myth and lies about NRA supporting individual gun owners. It's all about money - corporate greed at its worst in the faux name of protection and security.
on December 23,2012 | 11:17AM
Beaglebagels wrote:
Loaded weapons in every teachers desk, what could possibly go wrong?
on December 23,2012 | 11:28AM
loquaciousone wrote:
Wayne LaPierre is NUTS.
on December 23,2012 | 01:07PM
loquaciousone wrote:
The NRA need to get rid of that idiot real soon or they will lose al support from the SANE public. That guy is NUTS. Shootings occur in theatres, shopping malls and not only in schools. Are you going to put an armed guard in every public place. How many armed guards would you need to fulfil this idiots fantasy, 1 hundred thousand, 3 hundred thousand, 1 billion?
on December 23,2012 | 01:10PM
alohacharlie wrote:
The NRA mouthpiece says that "the public wants armed guards in public schools" - not me or anyone I know - but I, nor anyone I know, is a member of the NRA.
on December 23,2012 | 01:39PM
ichiban wrote:
1. Ban the selling and use of assault weapons. 2. Forget about armed guards stationed in every school. It ain't happening here. 3. Anyone buying guns must show I.D. and wait a reasonable amount of time to have his/her background checked before physically receiving the weapon. Also people kill people. I've never seen a gun go on its own looking to shoot people. Never in a murder trial involving the use of a gun have I seen a verdict where the gun got sentenced to jail time. EVER WONDER WHY? Go figure it out yourself. I'm tired of talking to brick walls.
on December 23,2012 | 01:45PM
Anonymous wrote:
The NRA leadership shows just how clueless it is about the American public! What we want is protection from gun totting lunatics who use their guns to commit violence and murder on innocent folks, which means stronger regulations for firearms and tightening the controls on how they are brought and sold in our country! But the NRA leadership continues to fool itself about what they think the public wants, creating hysteria and an atmosphere of mistrust, paranoia, and misrepresentation; the NRA continue to misrepresent what the second amendment stands for in America! The Constitution and their amendments should be considered as a dynamic set of legislation that grows and breathes to meet the needs of the American citizenry it was designated to guide, and should not be considered to be 'carved in stone unchanging, and inflexibly unbending!' The country's founders could not foresee what this country would eventually grow up to become, nor expect it to be guided by a strict unbending, inflexible code of conduct or regulations, but this is what the NRA want you to believe! Guns are tools, used for destructive purposes, it has no place in creating a better world; as far as self preservation goes, guns both legal and illegally purchased are caught up in a catch-22 scenario, oh sure they can be used for protection and for hunting, but in the end, it is their illicit use as tools for killing people that crosses the line and negates any positive attributes it might have in society at large!
on December 23,2012 | 02:08PM
stingray65 wrote:
Anonuymous, Was Bin Ladin killed by sling shots? Should we use sling shots for better world? HPD is very good enforcing law in States of Hawaii. But, the law in Hawaii is like revolving door. COP will catch them, Judge let them go.. Now tell me where is the consequences here? Nada!! None !! I just hope that nothing will happen to some of our politicians and law makers families if they burglarized, and families sexualy molested!! Maybe they will make those burglars Ham and Cheese sandwich? And let them go? Think again!!
on December 23,2012 | 03:47PM
RetiredWorking wrote:
Wonderfully said, Anonymous, except for the fact that the NRA is NOT clueless. They know well about public opinion.
on December 24,2012 | 04:29AM
bumbye wrote:
Whatʻs next? Bulletproof school clothes? Helmet and all. In fashionable colors!
on December 23,2012 | 02:43PM
environmental_lady wrote:
NRA claims that security guards in Israel prevented school shootings. I lived in Israel during the Maalot Massacre and there was a soldier posted for security and he ran away instead of protecting the children. One man was no enough to protect against a whole gang of terrorists. After I left the country and returned to the states, suicide bombers were the main threat and yes, armed guards were able to deter them from trying. What NRA fails to mention, though, is that Israel has strict gun control laws and that is why there are no school shootings and very few homicides.
on December 23,2012 | 03:06PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Maalot was in 1974. One of it's results was the security now in use at schools, which has resulted in no further gun violence in schools. They learned their lesson, will we?
on December 23,2012 | 05:03PM
krusha wrote:
This sounds like a good idea until just a few of those armed guards to postal one day. More guns is not the answer and will just compound the problem and turn this country into the wild wild west like countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan...
on December 23,2012 | 03:32PM
UHFAN1984 wrote:
Let's be logical you can't put an armed guard at every school union ,cost or whatever reason you have howerver we do have a police department with police officers on the clock when was the last time you saw a police car in a elementary school parking lot and the office doing a foot patrol on campus I don't recall any recently the police patrol around in their cars correct so you have the police do it of course they can't be at every school however if they have a random pattern of showing up at the schools in their district. It's the police presents the not knowing if the will be there or not when will the office be there to do his patrol is the deterent. We have officers that do JPO's and Pal League assignments let them take a period of time during the day to check on the schools in the district they are assigned to. It's all done during normal working hours with no overtime. You want to protect our childern this idea seems like it could work.
on December 23,2012 | 04:59PM
kailua1980 wrote:
Everyone, check this out: http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html Stuff like this happens almost EVERY DAY in America, but almost never makes the news. Licensed, knowledgeable, trained citizens stop violent crimes or minimize the loss such as what took place in Oregon all the time, but the stories are always downplayed or disappear very shortly after being run. Many experts agree...armed citizens can and do stop violent crimes all the time, and it does seem as if the man mentioned in the article above may have stopped the casualty count at three. So while very unfortunate for the two victims (and in some ways for the shooter as well) to have died; many, many more people may have perished had the shooter not run in to a person with a gun...
on December 23,2012 | 05:19PM
Komatose wrote:
A Policeman in every school is not a viable option. They would be the first target.(You can spot him he is the stereotypical vice principal that eats doughnuts all day ;-) A trained concealed carry member/members of the teaching/administrative staff would be more effective . School nurse,counselor, playground monitor etc. would be a better surprise response. As the beauty of concealed carry is the deterrent factor over the actual deployment of a weapon. Great job for a per-trained veteran of the military who is safe around kids, Win win. Veteran job placement. And a measure of immediate first response for safety&security. I would like to think of it as a "no brainier" but there is always a spoiler political rant/response.
on December 23,2012 | 07:23PM
Tanabe wrote:
NRA are the biggest bunch of idiots on the planet. Guns have no place in school at all. Armed guards at every school. 1) These kinds of crazy events are so rare that armed guards at each school would be a colossal waste of money that we don't have. 2) Even if there was a guard at the school, a determined crazy person can easily find a way around it. Like maybe killing the guard first before he even knows what's going on? Oh and look now the crazy person has another gun to shoot people with.
on December 23,2012 | 10:02PM
LittleEarl_01 wrote:
It won't work! "One round, one kill!" Even our trained police officers can't seem to live up to the "one round, one kill." Over the last several years whenever there has been a shooting by a police officer, they have unloaded most, if not all of their rounds at the suspect. Now imagine that in a school full of children. You got a half-crazed individual walking around shooting here and there, and a security guard (rent-a-cop), or a school teacher unloading on this individual in their attempt to stop the carnage. Nope, won't work!
on December 24,2012 | 03:54AM
control wrote:
Note to NRA: Columbine had an armed security guard.....Virginia Tech had it's own armed police force. Fort Hood is a military base.....Please explain how being armed helped those victims.
on December 24,2012 | 04:32AM
bender wrote:
The NRA is wrong, the public for the most part does not want armed guards in every school.
on December 24,2012 | 05:06AM
Breaking News